Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 03:55:49PM -0600, Ava Arachne Jarvis wrote:
> [Branden Robinson - Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:13:03 PM CST]
> > Please define "decent alternative for that infrastructure". What
> > specifically do you expect people to be able to accomplish with a
> > parallel infrastructure when the existing suffices?
>
> I'm not sure what the original post's definition was, but I'd define it
> as "something for which no free alternative exists"---for instance,
> kanji support in Ghostscript and PDF readers is only available through
> "non-free" means. Currently, at any rate. Or Arabic support in TeX.
> Or gif support in image manipulation utilities---although that's less of
> a problem, because of other image formats and because of PNG. Someone's
> native language, however, well... is their native language.
>
> Actually, if we could raze non-free of spurious utilities (like games
> or gif support) and provide installers for the more serious ones, then
Nope. If you remove the non-free stuff, then you will not replace them
by installers, this wouldn't serve any purpose. And beside, is an
installer really free ? Sure it does not link to the non-free binary,
but can it be used without it ? I think not.
If you want to remove non-free, stand to your opinion, and trully remove
it, not replacing it by installers, especially for some stuff which we
can distribute if we felt like it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: